Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Is mirrorless really better thand DSLR? (modern versions only)
Page <<first <prev 26 of 35 next> last>>
Apr 8, 2021 05:07:50   #
wide2tele Loc: Australia
 
SuperflyTNT wrote:
There you go again. Most of us that shoot mirrorless have said IQ is not really a factor in choosing mirrorless.

I must've missed the point then. Do mirrorless tell daily jokes? Read horoscopes? Has to be some reason for spending thousands???

Apr 8, 2021 05:40:14   #
Dan Thornton Loc: Corpus Christi, Texas
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Mirrorless cameras are a way of feeling, of touching, of loving. Images captured from behind a mirror are cold, heartless and uncaring.


Great humor this morning, thanks.

Apr 8, 2021 06:05:45   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Ysarex wrote:
Here's the classic example from Zeiss/Hasselblad. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/swc.htm
The Hasselblad of the film era was an SLR. A Zeiss 40mm Distagon wide angle lenses was available for the camera. Nonetheless Hasselblad made and sold at the same time the SWC which was fitted with a 38mm Zeiss Biogon. It was a lot of money back then. Why buy a whole new camera without SLR viewing just to use that one fixed lens. And the answer is distortion -- as in not there in the 38mm Biogon but very much there in the 40mm Distagon.
Here's the classic example from Zeiss/Hasselblad. ... (show quote)


Having owned a 38mm Biogon what was cannibalized from a trashed SWC body, mounted on a Sinar F lens plate, I can attest to the 'non-wide-angle-ness" of that design. It fully covered 6x7 format and even 6x9 had little vignetting when stopped down, and I used it with roll film holders. The Sinar standards used to have a place to mount a cold shoe, and on it I attached a Leitz-branded 21mm viewfinder for their M-series 21mm Super Angulon. On the bottom of the standard was a 1/4x20 thread which I used to attach a grip. It was a no focus design with fantastic depth of field. FotoCare - a studio equipment retailer in the photo district of Manhattan, NY, put it together for me. The lens was magical - no wide angle (extension) distortion, no volume deformation, nothing that would give it away as an ultrawide lens. It was a pancake - the lens board was attached to the front of the standard, and the film holder was attached to the rear of the standard - no bellows, no rail. Pretty amazing piece of gear - certainly one of a kind.

I doubt KR ever saw anything like it, much less held one or shot with one.

Around the same time (early 70s) I started using Contax cameras - RTSII - and found that the 25mm F2.8 MM and the 21mm F4.5 MM Distagons manufactured by Zeiss also had similar properties though they were optically inferior to the Biogons. The Super Angulons, manufactured by Schneider and Leitz, were actually Biogon-derived designs as well.

 
 
Apr 8, 2021 06:19:46   #
gouldopfl
 
Actually only a rumor for Nikon. Canon no longer produces DSLR's. They do have the very low end DSLR's but I believe that they will be moving that business to the EOS-M mount or a rumored new body. It doesn't make sense to continue to try and support multiple mount types and older technologies.

Apr 8, 2021 07:19:24   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA
 
kb6kgx wrote:
What most of us would like to know is… if there are no real significant differences between DSLR and mirrorless, then why does it seem like there is a big hoo-hah about mirrorless? All these "banner headlines" touting about how we should dump our DSLR and go mirrorless. Nikon and Canon and Sony and everybody will stop production on DSLRs (rumor, of course) and concentrate on mirrorless. If there is no difference, then… why?

Is it possible to look at a photograph and be to tell which type of camera the photograph was taken with? No, of course not.
What most of us would like to know is… if there ar... (show quote)

Opinion.... Hype....

Oooh, ooh, ooh, ya gotta do this... ya gotta get this...

Apr 8, 2021 07:42:50   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA
 
wide2tele wrote:
I must've missed the point then. Do mirrorless tell daily jokes? Read horoscopes? Has to be some reason for spending thousands???

I have no idea what MY IQ is, but at least my camera takes decent pictures.

Apr 8, 2021 07:48:59   #
wide2tele Loc: Australia
 
Longshadow wrote:
I have no idea what MY IQ is, but at least my camera takes decent pictures.

I'm trying to figure this all out. Maybe it's the EVF? It's cheaper to learn how to meter an exposure isn't it?
What would people do if they had to use match needle metering, manual focus and manual advance? They'd need a new hobby I think!

 
 
Apr 8, 2021 07:53:02   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA
 
wide2tele wrote:
I'm trying to figure this all out. Maybe it's the EVF? It's cheaper to learn how to meter an exposure isn't it?
What would people do if they had to use match needle metering, manual focus and manual advance? They'd need a new hobby I think!

What, only three things to rant or rave for or against?
Stupid camera.

Apr 8, 2021 08:12:20   #
larryepage
 
wide2tele wrote:
I'm trying to figure this all out. Maybe it's the EVF? It's cheaper to learn how to meter an exposure isn't it?
What would people do if they had to use match needle metering, manual focus and manual advance? They'd need a new hobby I think!


Does having a car with Lane Assist make one a better driver? No. Probably the opposite as you form the habit of depending on it more and more. Does it prevent you from getting injured or killed in an accident? Quite possibly, it might. Does having a car that can parallel park itself make you a better driver? No, it does not. Does it mean that you might sometimes be able to park closer to the door of your favorite restaurant if you stink at parallel parking? Quite possibly so.

There is nothing necessarily inherently wrong with parallel parking assistance. Lane assist, on the other hand, certainly has the possibility of making you a worse driver than you already are as you become more dependent on it and even less attentive.

I don't care any more about whether you buy a mirrorless camera than I do about whether you buy a car with lane assist or automatic parking. I just don't need any of the three right now, and I get very tired of being told that I do, and, oh, by the way, that I need to pay extra for them.

That's the crux of the argument. If you don't think it's valid, just look down (or up) and check out what page we are on.

I'm asking people to buy what they want, but get clue and leave the rest of us alone. You don't need me to validate your choice, and I really don't need you pestering me about it.

I never tell anyone what they should buy...just what to think about to help them choose. Stop trying to tell me.

Apr 8, 2021 08:18:19   #
petrochemist Loc: UK
 
larryepage wrote:
This does tie to one very real disincentive for me, which I have mentioned before. When doing night sky photography, the evf is a real risk for disrupting the night vision that we have to work so hard to establish, especially when we are older. I realize that this is a very specialized case involving very few photographers, but for me it is a very real reason that I would continue to use a DSLR for that application, even if I converted for everything else.

And several have mentioned over and over that continued development will all be directed into mirrorless cameras and not DSLRs. That is an area of complete nonconcern for me (just like the absence of a pop-up flash was on the D500 and D850.) The truth is that the state of development for top tier DSLRs is very high. There is really nothing additional that is really needed or needs to be imagined. In fact, if you look objectively at what the D850 offers over the D810, it is really very, very marginal. While it will be interesting to see what is offered to justify a D860 or D870 (if one even really materializes), I expect to be happy with my four cameras for the rest of my life (or the rest of the time that I am able to use them). Much of what could be offered on any new camera would be, if we are honest, simply "fluff." Look at the newest car models. They have a lot of "features" that were not available on older models. But how much of it really matters? If you are a competent driver, why do you need a vehicles that parallel parks itself? If you are not a competent driver, why aren't you? And, by the way, having a vehicle that can do it for you does not make you a competent driver. It just makes you a driver with a vehicle that can cover for your failures.

Oh...about that pop-up flash. Have you not noticed that any significant lens (at least any lens that would be deemed suitable by most here) vignettes in the light field of a pop-up flash? Or that it is practically impossible to eliminate redeye from it?
This does tie to one very real disincentive for me... (show quote)


If the moon or bright lights are around then yes an EVF is worse for your night vision than an OVF.
If there's only stars visible the boosted viewfinder brightness is not much of an issue, it will be the same for all astro shots.

Apr 8, 2021 08:20:22   #
wide2tele Loc: Australia
 
larryepage wrote:
Does having a car with Lane Assist make one a better driver? No. Probably the opposite as you form the habit of depending on it more and more. Does it prevent you from getting injured or killed in an accident? Quite possibly, it might. Does having a car that can parallel park itself make you a better driver? No, it does not. Does it mean that you might sometimes be able to park closer to the door of your favorite restaurant if you stink at parallel parking? Quite possibly so.

There is nothing necessarily inherently wrong with parallel parking assistance. Lane assist, on the other hand, certainly has the possibility of making you a worse driver than you already are as you become more dependent on it and even less attentive.

I don't care any more about whether you buy a mirrorless camera than I do about whether you buy a car with lane assist or automatic parking. I just don't need any of the three right now, and I get very tired of being told that I do, and, oh, by the way, that I need to pay extra for them.

That's the crux of the argument. If you don't think it's valid, just look down (or up) and check out what page we are on.

I'm asking people to buy what they want, but get clue and leave the rest of us alone. You don't need me to validate your choice, and I really don't need you pestering me about it.

I never tell anyone what they should buy...just what to think about to help them choose. Stop trying to tell me.
Does having a car with Lane Assist make one a bett... (show quote)

A post in this thread does not determine what I will do so I don't care what people post.
You bring up a good point. My car does not have lane assist. I'm going out first thing tomorrow to buy one that does because I need it right???

 
 
Apr 8, 2021 08:23:53   #
Nosaj Loc: Florida
 
I agree.
When you separate the marketing hype from the physical realities, the answer is no!

Apr 8, 2021 08:36:34   #
petrochemist Loc: UK
 
wide2tele wrote:
I must've missed the point then. Do mirrorless tell daily jokes? Read horoscopes? Has to be some reason for spending thousands???


None of my (five) mirrorless cameras has cost thousands.
They have multiple advantages for me over my DSLRs (also five) most of which have been mentioned in this thread already but to summarise:

The short registration greatly increases flexibility with lenses,
An EVF allows framing when the light levels are too low for a OVF (macro & DOF preview have issues on DSLRs)
If desired a shutter speed average view can be seen in the viewfinder (I've hardly ever tried this)
Instant review can be carried out without taking the camera from your eye
White balance can be shown in the viewfinder
Ditto for Focus peaking, histograms, magnified views, over exposure warnings....

Apr 8, 2021 08:41:47   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA
 
wide2tele wrote:
A post in this thread does not determine what I will do so I don't care what people post.
You bring up a good point. My car does not have lane assist. I'm going out first thing tomorrow to buy one that does because I need it right???

1.

2.

Apr 8, 2021 08:50:04   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Good morning. Thanks for your short, sober comparison between DSLR and mirrorless cameras. I agree with your conclusion that they produce the same image quality.

The intense sell-job for mirrorless cameras skips this conclusion. We can understand why.

One day I may switch from my DSLRs to mirrorless. Nothing now impels me to do so, however.
JohnR wrote:
Just a little food for thought

Looking completely dispassionately which is better photographically – for image quality?

First the significant differences (Comparing APS-C and full frame only):

DSLR bodies are bigger and heavier than mirrorless bodies.
DSLRs take many more photos per battery charge than mirrorless
DSLRs have mirrors :)
Mirrorless don’t have mirrors :) :)
Mmmm – can’t think of any other significant differences.

Second important similarities:

Both have sensors
Both have viewfinders
Both have LCDs
Both have lenses
Mmmm – can’t think of any other important similarities.

So how does any of this make a mirrorless better than a DSLR?? Well IMHO it doesn’t, it can’t and it won’t as far as image quality of photographs is concerned. Excluding the photographers skill levels and the many personal preferences involved, the image quality of a photograph is directly proportional to the quality of the lens and the sensor.
Mirrorless do not have better sensors than DSLRs. Mirrorless do not have better lenses than DSLRs. So photographs from mirrrorless cannot have better image quality than those from DSLRs.
Just a little food for thought br br Looking comp... (show quote)

Page <<first <prev 26 of 35 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2021 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.